domain:city-journal.org
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
19hr ago
If the report is the same one I saw, it seems so odd to me.
Why does he have roommates when he also has a family with five children and a wife he's still married to? Why did he text his roommates that he "did something stupid" instead of his wife? Unless they're estranged.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
19hr ago
Until very recently, the Democratic Party in Minnesota had Pro-life Democrats.
Minnesota’s Iron Range was both very pro-life and very pro-union. They elected pro-life Democrat Jim Oberstar to Congress many times, until Obamacare turned the pro-lifers against him.
Grant_us_eyes
19hr ago
Why not? They've done it before. They explicitly went out of their way to hide the Nashville Shooter's manifesto, who was a self-claimed FtM tranny that shot up a Christian school, if you've forgotten.
OliveTapenade
19hr ago
1 You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.
You don't need to, but it is a good habit to get into. If I were teaching someone to drive I'd tell them to do it even if no one is around.
2 Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.
For stop signs, no. In principle you should be ready to, but if you are moving slowly and can see there is zero traffic, I think it's reasonable to just take a stop sign slowly.
For red lights, yes. You always obey the lights.
3 Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.
Not necessarily. In general, you should try to roughly follow them, but as long as you are travelling at a safe speed relative to everyone else on the road, I'm not going to be too stressed if you're two or three km/h over.
4 The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.
(Reversing this due to Commonwealth country.)
No. Yes, there's sort of a convention that the right lane goes faster than the left lane, but it's only a very soft convention. It in no way excuses misbehaviour.
That said, I am now wondering if this is different in America. Adjust as needed if you have different road rules.
5 If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.
I don't really know or care about guilt here. If somebody is a jerk and doesn't let you in when they ought to, well, they're a jerk, but you should still drive safely and that means you shouldn't try to force your way in. That's just asking for an accident.
6 I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.
There is a rule that overrides all other driving rules, and that rule is to ensure your safety, the safety of other occupants of your vehicle, and the safety of other road users. I'm not going to police the exact order of any of those things, but I will say that if you are ever in a circumstance where your choices are to break a road rule or let either injury or property damage occur, break the road rule. The road rules exist to ensure people's safety, so if breaking them is necessary to keep people safe, you should break them without fear or shame.
7 Any other possible driving scissor statements?
I hate GPS devices. Hate them. If I get lost on the way somewhere I usually pull on to a side road, stop, and then refer either to a paper map or bring up a map on my phone or laptop. GPS in the car drives me insane.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
19hr ago
"This is not liberty, this is license" has always been a tyrant's excuse.
HereAndGone
19hr ago
He has ties to Tim Walz and the greater Democratic Party. Still no released motive.
Which makes me think that politicians should say as little as possible in the immediate aftermath of an event like this or any other tragedy or natural disaster, because it only leads to egg on face (as well as shooting off your mouth based on inadequate information).
Walz was quick off the mark with "this is a politically motivated assassination", presumably on the basis that if Democrat politicians were attacked, it must be those dastardly Republicans to blame. Well, turns out that (it's looking like) the guy is one of your own, Tim. So now what is the political motivation, and how is your party to be held accountable?
Particularly if (let's do some wild speculating here) the guy was motivated by the David Hogg approach of "let's go after the moderate Democrats, after all they're to blame for co-operating with Republicans and enabling Trump to be elected"?
HereAndGone
19hr ago
Investigating, or trying to change? One of the rules of this joint is "no building consensus" and I think that's fair enough. If A wants to know why B thinks/doesn't think X is right or wrong, fine. If A is trying to persuade B that of course X is right (or wrong) and that B should change their mind, now we're getting into a grey area.
Because I've seen my share recently of "well of course all right-thinking people believe X is normal, moral, and good" with no room for "some people think X is wrong in good faith and with solid reasons".
There are some things I am not going to change someone's mind on and they're not going to change mine. I've had those arguments and those rows, more or less civil depending on how heated both parties got. So when "just askin' why" query number 999 comes along, I'm not interested in fighting over that old fight again.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
19hr ago
Since when has license being equivalent to freedom become "objective"?
Cirrus
19hr ago
Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. Trump is signaling his political loyalties to those who elected him. The more publicized and controversial means that these are more costly signals. This means that his supporters will believe that his efforts are sincere.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
19hr ago
London/Asian megacities do it well and they're not long skinny islands
They don't do it well. They do it "well enough" for commuting, but you'll notice the streets are jammed with auto traffic. And Tokyo is famous for its terrible conditions on the commuter trains.
If the status quo (gridlock, people hating driving/each other) sucks, why shoot down every potential solution to wallow in the status quo?
I'm only shooting down solutions that don't work and can be expected to make things worse.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
19hr ago
That's not how I remember most of my life in such a state. And I lived through the blessed 90s which I'm told were the apotheosis of such sentiment.
And yet in retrospect, all I can see of that period is a more covert form of what you describe. The mask used to be better, but all of it was just attempts to help friends and hurt enemies in whichever way the law allows or at least tolerates.
What I'll concede is that people had more faith in the power of debate then, but that's only because the underhanded tactics have proven themselves to work better to everyone now.
iprayiam3
20hr ago
I’m not talking about Biden or Pelosi or other democrat leaders. There are many many serious Catholics who are anti Trump and also anti abortion. You can I can discuss whether they are mistaken to keep voting democrat but these people exist in large number.
I am saying that if this guy is hypothetically anti Trump pro immigrant healthcare and anti abortion:
-
This describes a ton of serious involved Catholics. You are right that they are much less common in trad circles
-
A reliably large proportion vote democrat. Sure once you start filtering for theological rigidity, they vote more and more a minority vote, but still exist.
-
Voting pattern aside these folks are much more Blue Tribe than Red Tribe.
-
This set of views probably describes the most left wing bishops in the US, including ones who are shakey on sex stuff and ones who are solid.
Again, ther is no evidence this guy is Catholic so I’m just playing pattern matching.
jake
20hr ago
I didn't want to slur all criticism as antisemitism, thus my poor attempt at a novel term.
Wave_Existence
20hr ago
This is very similar to my opinion, which leads me to believe that at one point or another you drove a lot, possibly even paid to do so.
Exotic_cetacean
Aesthetics over ethics
21hr ago
I endorse the rest of this take, but libertarianism has no problem with joint ownership, and countries can be conceptualized as intergenerational, publicly owned enterprise, so the doors are opened if you ever feel like coming back
my opinions;
-
no, although i do see the sense in the habit formation arguments others have raised. In my opinion though as long as you always signal when that signal is needed, then nobody cares if you dont signal when wildly changing 4 lanes on an otherwise uninhabited stretch of highway.
-
generally you have to stop to assess whether you needed to stop so i essentially agree you should always stop.
-
id ammended to say speed limit + 5MPH up to 45 and limit+10 for over 50, then yes everybody should be going no higher than that range of speeds. maybe speed limit +30 for low density highways.
-
i think i disagree? the left lane is the most sensible place for people who want to go fast and arent planning on changing lanes for a long time. If you are in the left and you dont want to go somewhere fast you are in the wrong place.
-
this is a tough one because generally needing to merge under duress is caused by a failure to plan your route. "oh crap i should have been in the right lane a quarter mile ago but now i need to dangerously merge immediately" is a bad excuse in the age of freely available GPS on every phone.
-
in general i think people that are better drivers than me can probably get away with breaking way more of these rules than i do, and people with less experience should probably try to follow much more closely than i. I guess this just boils down to "as long as you dont fuck anybody up with your bad driving then godspeed"
-
One of these happened to me just the other day. I needed to turn left at a big intersection of a 6 lane road with a 4 lane road, and im coming from the 4 lane. I need to cross 3 lanes of traffic to complete this turn, and the left turning signal is the evil RED ARROW of DO NOT TURN LEFT.
Normall, i respect the authority of the red arrow, its color a warning of the dire consequences of failing to comply with its mandate. But today, both sides of the road i needed to cross, all 3 lanes in each direction, were fully bricked up with stopped cars waiting for their light to turn green. I waited for 30ish seconds as no cars went anywhere and then drove in solitude across the forbidden zone. I imagine at least someone in the waiting traffic saw what i did, and i wonder if they saw me as kindof an awesome defiant paragon of truth, or maybe as some sort of rule breaking dastard who belongs under the jail.
But in reality i was just a guy who didnt want to wait 5 minutes to turn left, and i saw a situation where nobody else would be harmed by breaking the rules, so i took it.
benmmurphy
21hr ago
Hanania dropping the sarcasm in the twitter thread:
I know right! Lmao, just like they told us to take the vax, fellow pureblood.
Southkraut
Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.
21hr ago
judenkritikal
No such Word in any German dialect I know.
ControlsFreak
21hr ago
The effort required is basically just to actually put together the currently publicly available information and describe why people would be interested in discussing it.
Suppose we subtracted the snark from the OP and added, "People may be interested in discussing this because it's a surprising, significant military operation between countries that people are historically interested in discussing." Is that enough? How about, "People may be interested in discussing this because c'mon! Of course people are going to be interested in discussing this. There's a 0% chance people aren't going to be interested in discussing this."
And for this effort bar we filter out a lot of fluff. The cost is that we will have to wait 20 minutes for someone to do this before we have a discussion about breaking news, but we're not aiming to be a breaking news platform so this is a very low cost.
Waiting 20min has approximately nothing to do with it. It is entirely at the conceptual level. Moreover, I contend that my proposed distinction allows us to filter out at least the same amount of fluff. My proposed distinction also does not aim in any way toward turning TheMotte into a breaking news platform.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
22hr ago
My next digital fast is starting tomorrow. I'm actually looking forward to it. Maybe I'll even digitally fast every Wednesday and Friday, like a good Christian.
Speaking of fasts, I have a question to the various American Orthodox here: do you observe every single one?
Hyperion
22hr ago
There's freedom from and freedom to.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
22hr ago
(4) No(ish). The left lane is a lane. We should utilize all lanes. When traffic is slow it is better to use them all and it would be stupid chaos if people were passing, merging, then being passed in the left lane.
Clarification: "Passing" includes "going faster than vehicles in the right lane", not just "performing a 'passing maneuver' of moving from the right lane to the left lane, passing a single car or platoon of cars that's in the right lane, and moving back to the right lane". An at-capacity two-lane highway following this rule would be composed of two full lanes with the left lane moving slightly faster than the right lane, not a full right lane and an empty left lane.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
22hr ago
(4) No, when there is traffic all lanes should be utilized.
Clarification: "Passing" includes "going faster than vehicles in the right lane", not just "performing a 'passing maneuver' of moving from the right lane to the left lane, passing a single car or platoon of cars that's in the right lane, and moving back to the right lane". An at-capacity two-lane highway following this rule would be composed of two full lanes with the left lane moving slightly faster than the right lane, not a full right lane and an empty left lane.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
22hr ago
Interstates around here are normally 2 lanes wide, there is always traffic, and there are frequent cloverleafs with on ramps and offramps right next to each other. If people only utilized the left lane for passing traffic would be much worse because of less throughput on the roads and slowdowns due to contention merging on and off the interstate.
Clarification: "Passing" includes "going faster than vehicles in the right lane", not just "performing a 'passing maneuver' of moving from the right lane to the left lane, passing a single car or platoon of cars that's in the right lane, and moving back to the right lane". An at-capacity two-lane highway following this rule would be composed of two full lanes with the left lane moving slightly faster than the right lane, not a full right lane and an empty left lane.
Neither are what I requested, and neither are what are cited in the modern discussion of Israel and Palestine. The modern discussion says specifically there are immediate and frequent examples of Israeli soldiers outright murdering Palestinian civilians. A single example from 20 years ago that resulted in a full investigation and trial is none of these.
As for the other example:
A man who had every reason to lie said there had been no other gunfire. Had there been, it absolves the IDF. They would still be wrong to shoot the car, but they shot it because they were under fire and understandably assumed the worst. It's a casualty of war, it happens, it's not wanton murder. And to not make you think I take the IDF at their word, I never do, but they at least check. That article mentions the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, where the IDF admitted one of their soldiers fired at her. How many times has any Palestinian organization admitted a group they first claimed as civilians murdered by the IDF were in fact militants killed fairly? Has it happened a single time ever? If it hasn't, it's not because they've never lied about it.
That's the problem with articles, journalists wrote them. The writer of the second article is a person who is specifically motivated to defend Palestine and criticize Israel. I can't believe them, categorically, and again by the way, same for Haaretz or whatever Israel-favoring publications, I presume every sentence as untrue. This is why I ask for video.
What I am asking for is clear video evidence from the current Gaza War of a civilian being murdered. That they are objectively a civilian, so objectively civilian circumstances (Ideally, anyway, right now can't be held as a standard in Palestine) so a woman who could not possibly be concealing explosives or else couldn't be considered as in a place where that's a reasonable fear, or a child who can on-sight be determined as not carrying explosives--as this discussion can't be held faithfully without acknowledging one side employs women and children as suicide bombers--and that they are then clearly singularly targeted and shot. Ian Carroll, who I've liked clips by him, talks about it, Darryl Cooper, same, talks about it, IDF snipers wantonly dropping civilians, and it is those videos I have never seen, those videos I have looked again and again to find, and all I can ever get is people talking about the supposed incidents, not actually showing them. I don't want to watch them, but I need to know the truth more than I need to avoid the heartsickness from seeing the horror I already know is so much in this world.
More options
Context Copy link